With all the progress that cryptocurrency is making within the financial world across the globe, one would think it was full steam ahead and that crypto adoption was a universally accepted fact. However, this is not so as there are places in the world were both in the public and private sectors, cryptocurrency is facing some level of restriction. This is down to a number of factors such as distrust for cryptocurrencies in general, government regulations and so on though some believe that as cryptocurrency becomes more popular, it will be practically impossible for any place in the world to restrict it. 

It seems there are still some hurdles to overcome as a Scandinavian court recently backed the decision by Nordea, a Scandinavian financial services firm, to ban all of its employees from holding any cryptocurrency.

Ban Upheld 

According to the December 3, 2019 reports, one of the reasons that the court upheld his ban is due to the reported risks associated with cryptocurrency. However, there are some loopholes as this restriction does not apply to financial instruments that are associated with digital assets that the company sold to its consumers or cryptocurrency that was acquired before the ban was put in place. 

In response to the ban, the Danish Association for financial services employees filed a complaint against the company and stated that the ban on cryptocurrency is an unwelcome interference in their personal affairs.

“We filed suit because of the principle that everyone obviously has a private life and the right to act as a private individual. It was important for us and our members to establish what rights managers have. In this case, it was more far-reaching than what we find to be appropriate,” said Kent Petersen, the union’s chairman. 

The bank’s intention to ban all users employees from owning cryptocurrency was first announced as far back as late January 2018 but considering that is the largest bank in the country, up to 31,500 people will be banned from owning cryptocurrency which is a significant number. Cases like this also bring up the discussion on company interference in employee affairs and whether it is ethical for such a ban to be put in place.

What's your reaction?
Leave a Comment